SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/12/1998 3:15:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1533
 
Reagan was a great President. His policies beat the Soviets and he ended the Cold War when all the liberals said he couldn't. Supply side worked well and is being applied successfully around the world. PBS just had a 6 hour documentary which details all that.

Iran Contra was a policy dispute and Reagan never lied under oath. Bush was a cipher and Truman is vastly overrated, but better than most.

Still, Reagan finished in the top three. And his administration looks better all the time. The people still love him as no former president was ever loved.
cgi.pathfinder.com



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/12/1998 5:24:00 AM
From: Catfish  Respond to of 1533
 
Jonathan C. Doe,
Reagan was by far the greatest President in the last 100 years. His leadership led to the complete breakup of the Soviet Bloc which I did not expect to see in my lifetime. Once the Soviets (Russians) realized that they could not compete economically or militarily (Remember the threat of Star Wars?), and the unfavorable world view of them as military dictators, it was over thanks to a Russian leader (Gorbachev) with a vision for the future prospects of the country.

Clinton is the worst president in US history. Totally corrupt before he was elected. (Read "Boy Clinton" by Emmett Tyrell.)

Lyndon Johnson holds a close second to Clinton as the worst president in US history. He did more to advance socialistic causes than any president in US history. (Nixon left in a scandal, but he did not damage the country with his policies as Clinton and Johnson did.)








To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/12/1998 10:36:00 AM
From: Les H  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1533
 
>The Cold War was ending without him.

Actually, at the time Reagan took office, Soviet adventurism was at its peak having enjoyed a 10-year run from the detente period, aka appeasement policy, of Nixon/Ford/Carter. Soviet clients were very active in Central America, Africa, SE Asia, and so on. What changed with Reagan was the support of counter-insurgents to combat the Soviet-backed terrorists, instead of direct intervention. The US support of the Afghan freedom-fighter brought about the Soviet Union's version of Vietnam and led to their retrenchment. The Soviet military never recovered from this episode.

The other credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union was the inability for the Soviets to gain hard currency from the West due to restrictions on trade, the long recession of 1980-1982 which caused the fall of prices of natural resources on which the Soviets depended, Poland's shipworkers revolt (support by the Pope and the US was critical to them), and lastly, the economic mismanagement of the Soviet economy.

>The first term was horrible with the folly of Voodoo economics and
>trickle down didn't work at all and the supply side economics was
>one of the worst disasters of this countries economic history.

Actually, that was the same complaint during the first four years of the Clinton administration. The fact is when the economy recovers from a recession/depression, the unskilled are the last to benefit. The first to benefit are those who weathered through the downturn and next are those with skills or products in demand.

>You had him lying about Iran Contra.

The Boland Amendment was found to be unconstitutional. It just goes
to show how screwed up a Democratic Congress is to assist a Communist regime in Central America. Also, would you rather have had the hostages stay in Lebanon? They weren't being held for a matter of a few months, but for 3 or 4 years or more.

>Then you had the fiasco of the savings and loan which was something
>on Reagan's watch; no enforcement of audits and the word was out the
>government wasn't looking. Reagan policy created that mess.

The banking mess was created by the real estate mania of the 80's.
Then you had the HUD scandal. Then the defense contractor scandal. Horrible
President.

Bush; now there was a President history will hold up; a Truman type. Excellent
President. Quayle was the big glaring error. An idiot who would not have been
qualified to be a soda jerk, let alone President. A draft dogger using connections to
skip the draft in a safe uniform.



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/12/1998 10:53:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1533
 
Sunday, Sept. 13, 1998
JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION EDITORIAL



Clinton must find the courage to resign

This joint editorial reflects the conclusions of the editorial boards of both
The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, acting separately and
independently.

The American people seem doomed to a guided tour of hell in
days to come, exposed against their wishes to the details of a
particularly seamy presidential scandal.

Only one person can spare us that nightmare. By resigning,
President Clinton would be surrendering the office he worked his
entire life to achieve, and would give his enemies the reward they
have long sought. No one as proud and stubborn as the president
could take such a step easily.

Yet, by making that sacrifice, Clinton would save the nation from a
protracted trauma that will otherwise cripple the presidency and
Congress and further discredit a political system already held in
low esteem. A president more concerned with the national interest
than his own self-preservation would realize that resignation is his
only responsible option.

Sadly, Bill Clinton has shown himself incapable of such sacrifice.
He is a complex man with many attractive qualities, but in the end
his character has been defined by his crass selfishness. It is that
trait--perjury and adultery are merely its symptoms--that has
rendered him unfit to continue as president.

At repeated points in the progression of this scandal, Clinton has
faced a critical choice: "Should I do what is best for the country,
or should I do what is best for me?" If at any of those points,
Clinton had chosen to do what was best for the country, we would
not be in this mess. But he could not.

Look how it began: In late 1995, the Paula Jones
sexual-harassment case was already hanging over Clinton's head,
and his political opponents had made it clear that they thirsted for
his blood. Yet, despite the danger to his presidency, Clinton
decided to begin a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old intern
named Monica Lewinsky.

That reckless decision--to gamble his presidency on the ability of a
starry-eyed young woman to keep her silence--has been
described as terrible judgment, and it is. But even more troubling,
it demonstrates that Clinton valued his own gratification too highly
and took his duty as president too lightly.

That choice between his duty as president and his own self-interest
presented itself again when Clinton was asked, in a sworn
deposition in the Jones case, whether he had sexual relations with
Lewinsky. As a father and husband, his natural instinct was to
deny the charge and commit perjury. According to the polls, most
Americans do not judge Clinton harshly for that decision. They
accept his explanation that he was trying to protect himself and his
family.

However, the act of committing perjury has consequences for the
president of the United States that do not apply when the crime is
committed by most husbands and fathers. The president takes an
oath before the entire nation to uphold the law; by committing a
felony, he violates that solemn oath.

Because of the nature of his perjury, Clinton's decision to lie will
not by itself generate the public anger necessary for impeachment.
It is nonetheless important, because it satisfies the constitutional
requirement that impeachment involve "high crimes and
misdemeanors." At some later date, it and other charges could
provide the technical foundation for impeachment motivated by
other, less legal considerations.

Clinton's most cowardly and indefensible refusal to put the national
interest ahead of his own well-being involves his protracted
attempt to conceal his perjury and infidelity. Over the past several
months, he has enlisted the full force and majesty of his office in
defense of his deception, and in the process damaged the
presidency both as an institution and as a national symbol.

For example, his forceful and falsely sincere denial of an affair with
"that woman, Miss Lewinsky" put his Cabinet members in a tough
position. They had to either publicly proclaim their confidence in
the president, or resign. He forced them to put their personal and
professional credibility on the line in defense of what he knew to
be a lie.

Likewise, because Clinton refused to tell the truth, Secret Service
agents were compelled to testify before a grand jury,
compromising what had been assumed to be a confidential
relationship between a president and the agents assigned to
protect him. And when White House aides were summoned to
testify about what they knew, government lawyers fought the
subpoenas on a claim of executive privilege. The courts overruled
that claim, a decision that will haunt future presidents who want to
consult honestly with staff on legally delicate matters.

When he first looked the American people in the eye and denied
his infidelity, Clinton might not have envisioned the full impact of
his deception on other people. But as the consequences became
clear, and as he saw the toll his deception was taking on members
of his staff and Cabinet, he had the obligation to intervene, to halt
the weakening of the presidency by the simple act of telling the
truth.

But to save his own hide, he remained silent.

Finally, on Aug. 17, unable any longer to maintain fiction as fact,
Clinton faced the nation. Here was his last chance to put the
interests of the nation above his own. By coming clean, by laying
the truth on the table for all to see, Clinton had the opportunity to
move the scandal to a quick resolution. And again, he failed. Even
then, he could not see beyond his own narrow needs; he could not
summon the courage to do what was right for the nation.

With the filing of the Starr report, the process toward
impeachment will accelerate. Until the contents of that report are
clear and President Clinton has had a chance to respond, final
judgment on impeachment would be premature. The forced
removal of a president through constitutional means is a grave
matter that should not be handled hastily.

The case for resignation, on the other hand, is already clear. At the
moment, Clinton's selfishness still serves as a blindfold, rendering
him unable to see the seriousness of his situation. But just as time
eventually forced him to admit both his lies and his infidelity, it may
eventually force him to consider resignation.

Congressional Democrats are already abandoning the nominal
head of their party. At some point in the next few weeks, they may
go to him and ask him to remove his blindfold and look honestly at
the ugly spectacle that he has wrought.

And maybe then he will find the courage to do what is best for his
country.
accessatlanta.com



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/12/1998 2:16:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1533
 
Johnathan, you are simply a hardcore partisan. You attempt at first to pretend you are not, when you say "Clinton will and should go down as a bad President in history". But then you immediately add, "but I don't support impeaching him". Then you realize that was too revealing of your partisanship, so you hastily add, "I did initially. I was disgusted with it all."

Then rest of your post is an unvarnished character assassination job on our most loved President of this century. Reagan single-handedly brought the Soviets to their knees, but yet you won't give him credit for it. Reagan also rescued us from Carter's 21% prime rate of interest, and launched the longest post-WWII economic boom. And you have the chutzpah to make the pathetic claim that "the folly of Voodoo economics and trickle down didn't work at all and the supply side economics was one of the worst disasters of this countries economic history."

You've obviously been taking some very close lessons from McCurray, Kendall, and our lying, cheating, fingerwagging deceiver, President Clinton.

While Reagan was affectionately known as "the great communicator", Clinton will be known as "the great deceiver".



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (101)9/13/1998 7:24:00 AM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1533
 
Reagan gets my vote for Man of the Century. He rescued us from economic collapse and military conquest.

He made people proud of their country again. It's as simple as that.